The Rhymes of a Digital Typewriter

Week 12, Remixing

2010-04-06T19:01:00.000-07:00

I remember when Girl Talk first came out. In fact, I remember when the precursor to Girl Talk came out, when mashups were comprised of 2 songs. It was a sunny day in April, Grade 10, my best friend Alia and I were exchanging music tastes over msn when she instructed me to download The Strokes' Soma mixed with a Christian Aguleria song. So cool was I at the time, that I scoffed at the thought of mixing such pure genius with such tripe, while secretly loving it.

Nowadays I really dig the mashups and let the whole wide world now about it! Especially my friend Alia, who now knows much more newer music than I for have retracted to the deep dark hole that is punk, jazz and classical music. Alright anyway,

This documentary seems rightly placed in this course. It combines the ideas we've discussed so far in relation to a serious matter that's going to implode upon the world soon: the idea of intellectual property and the public domain. What this means is there are contemporary players in the real world who will be affected by these issues, and it will affect both their bank books and their politics (a la copy right and copy left, what side are you on?)

The documentary discusses collage and the mashing of art, reworking the old into the new, consumers become prosumers, the sharing of cultures and identities through virtual means, the future of the manifesto! As Harry Zitler yells out in Moulin Rouge "Everything's going so well!" And by that I mean, this documentary highlights all the main points of our class so far. With the rotoscoping to prove it.

What I found really interesting was how the documentary both framed the arguments. Particularly, the copy right and the copy left, and how each side of the political spectrum was coined. Disregarding the legitimacy of mashups for the former and promotion of the mashups on the left. I wonder exactly how true that would be for artists who are trying to make money but align themselves on the left side of the spectrum, or if perhaps this relationship is constructed on stereotypes which exist.

I really enjoyed the argument that the guy who mixed the U2 song made in his lecture, that when we are surrounded constantly by billboards, or songs playing in restaurants, or advertisements appearing in our entertainment with no choice whatsoever. We individuals however are not allowed to use the images we are bombarded with to "make fun of it or critique it." It's as those these invisible hands are calling for the death of satire, knowing that it is the weapon of the people who are otherwise powerless in holding control. It is true that we are not allowed to control what we see or partake in in the day, yet are constantly made to believe we live in some sort of free life with constant choice.

Recall: Waking Life; Are we constantly living in a dream? Sleep deprived from being overworked yet in a fragmented haze of digitality where actions in life that once took place with hands moving and legs walking now happen with the click of a button (are we satisfied yet, Anne Everett?)

Re: Waking Life; Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle: As long as necessity is socially dreamed, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the bad dream of a modern society in chains and ultimately expresses nothing more than its wish for sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep... (...I wasn't joking when I said I love Debord.)

The idea is that technology now and those who control it, (Foucalt here talks about biopower while Innis shouts out about monopolies of power and knowledge) are creating a sort of mist throughout which we as individuals are supposed to float through without questioning if these practises make sense. Taking these songs, pieces of art, and mixing them and the backlash that comes from this exposes to those who will listen (in this case bikini-clad youths) that they are stuck in this system. Fortunately, some individuals are trying to make some noise to remedy the situation.

Exposing the systems which one detests and which others are unaware of is avant-garde. It is a matter of making clear that "there is something wrong." Ideally one can imagine change but in a practical sense it seems like we're really stuck in system with no "EXIT" sign. If one cannot create by taking other peoples art as has been the practise for, uhm, ever? then the question becomes "well what assholes who probably don't make the art but do own it" have decided this, and why can't they go take an arts and crafts class to realize how fun it is?

Lecture Ten, Dreaming!

2010-04-05T22:12:00.001-07:00

So, Angela Joosse' stuff was cool.

I think I have to be honest here. The artwork presented didn't impress me very much. I think the Leona Drive project was certainly fun and sweet call back to a time which is now long-gone. It would have been entertaining to have actually been submerged in the project, and I can imagine that a faux-nostalgia made of real emotions would probably overwhelm me. And here I'm not trying to be polite but honest.

I didn't think that the project did very much else though. In Angela Joosse' statement on her website she expresses her concerns or hesitations with creating in academia or the arts. Joosse says,

"we are drawn to phenomena, to things, to events that are little known or scarcely discussed. In this way we contribute to what is known and also provide articulation of phenomena, people, things that may have been excluded from the current or dominant discourse. That is, we find ways to make thetic what was relatively unknown. The danger is this: that we bring what was in the shadows, what was ,cloaked in complexity into the open and in so doing leave it open to manipulation. We live in a world that has a restless appetite for novelty."

Well, I think perhaps Joosse perhaps committed what she is apprehensive about in this installation. By taking a complete strangers belongings who is little known aside from her family and friends and who accomplished no things in her life that were considered worthy of notoriety (that is not to say her life was pointless or useless, I am sure Ruth did a lot during her years) and creating an installation about it, Joosse creates a minor phenomena. I think it is a form of manipulation. The artists had a number of belongings of Ruths but ultimately knew very little about the woman and yet "a Ruth" and "her" habitat were created. I think that very much the piece was based on novelty.

It seems as though Joosse is looking for some kind of real avant-garde, or at least some way to figure out that her work and other's in the field are exploring things that matter.

"One of the things that is becoming of increasing concern to me is trouble of bringing a new thing/ a new articulation into the world...As we all continue to work in the academy we know that we must contribute, and some degree of originality is required in order for our work to be considered an actual contribution to the field"

The Leona Drive project I don't think articulated anything very new. The themes seemed recycled and reminded me of some sort of small museum which exhibits the artefacts of the town's older generations. All in all, I didn't think there was very much unique presented, but it was touching.

I did appreciate the writings in the letters and autograph books which Ruth owned. It certainly helped to conjure up old souls and timeless advice and romanticism.

I hope no one re-creates a vision of me when I pass.

Lecture Eleven, Fragmenting

2010-04-05T20:39:00.000-07:00

I must say, I liked the use of a Patti Smith cover in the first part of the film. I don't think I'd ever heard her used in a film before (although I did travel to the big apple for one night only over the Xmas break to see her live, and it was amazing (and I did just use this blog as an opportunity to gloat, because it was a crowning achievement to date)).

And I thought I hated life throughout high school. Tracey seems to live in absolute Hell.

"How do you know what's real and what's not when the whole world is inside your head," Tracy asks us.

What is real in Tracy Fragments is that the audiences experience is mediated through the "split screen" effect and we understand we are watching a film. We are not submerged into the cinema appearing in front of us, meant to seamlessly envelope us in the narrative and carry us away on the romantic ride of film. Instead we are constantly asked to figure out what is going on, and what the hell we're supposed to listen to.

McDonald's use of split screen, collage, billboard, I liked. When he uses these techniques to express the fantasies that Tracey has created for herself, I them them as a form of appropriation of mass culture techniques. For example, when Tracey fantasizes about her fake boyfriend at school at one point the billboard effect pops up and she becomes like a rockstar "Tracy Berkowitz" flashes, and different coloured panels show her pictures. The technique is reminiscent of movies like 'That Thing You Do' (cheesy example, I know) or any block buster movie where the characters are presented as popstars. We recognize this technique as meaning "Good Things." We know it means the characters have reached a certain point, have found some success, are becoming recognizable (which we always assume is a good thing).

In Tracey Fragments this technique is used to expose the let down that is Tracey's reality. What usually connotes 'making it' and is mimetic of modern entertainment television shows here tells a different story. In contrast to Tracey's dire existence the techniques show the let-down of her reality, and the split screen only adds to the disorienting nature, and the horrid parts of the film are magnified by this confusion. When Tracey is in Lance's house and we're cringing with her in the corner of the room waiting for her to be discovered, the split screen feels like it's coming at us from all angles. Horrifying.

Side note, I must say though, the whole "titless wonder" thing was terribly excessive.

And on brighter note, Fun Fact: Bruce McDonald used to come in to the restaurant I worked at all the time! And my friend Brads choir sang at his wedding! He wears a cowboy hat a lot.

Lecture Eight, Crossing Over

2010-04-04T21:00:00.000-07:00

"Waking Life" blew my mind. Completely.

Individual vs the Group

Human vs Cyborg

Postmodernism vs Existentialism (maybe the best contemporary duel we got going)

Free Will vs Determined Lives

I thought at first I would perhaps be a little visually annoyed with the rotoscoping, but instead quickly saw the brilliance of why the creators chose to construct the film in this way. The effect is metaphorical for the script, that's no big shock once you start to listen to the ideas and themes being presented. Extremely poignant is when the one man is talking about free-will and how we are just a composite of 'mechanisms,' and mostly are made of water. The obvious question we narrative students are shepherded to is "well, what else is decided for us," and the image on the screen brings about harrowing moans of the combination of man & machine; cyborgs running free and giving us our philosophy lesson.

It calls into question Foucalt's biopower again. Who is controlling us? How far has computer and digital technology integrated into our beings and our social structures? Is it to the point that even our limited choices are now invisibly guided by the swift hand of the gigabyte? Has it invaded our dream world?

Mark Langer describes rotoscoping as a "hybrid product" that combines technology and the human body to create a simultaneous presence of the drawn and the photoindexical, in which the rotoscoped body is not so much fused with the human body as it is mapped over it."

When the man is manically driving through the street with the loudspeakers attached to his car I think Biopower and rotoscoping partake in a head on collision. "We should not submit to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned about what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control..." This character appears in digital form. Not only that, but the guy the scene is based on HAD to be in this movie to extend his message out. The biopower previals.

Oh I get so stuck on that. Anyway,

The dreaming bit was cool. Descartes asks, how do I know some evil genius mastermind is not controlling me?

Waking Life says, Well, maybe you don't. Maybe you'll never know till you're dead.

Descartes says, No no, I think therefor I am you postmodern assholes, my time can't dig it when you say "maybe you never do" cause we got too many morals.

Lastly, I must confess I spend a whole bunch of time reading The Society of the Spectacle. In fact, I got a copy of it in book format for Christmas this year, under my shiny glittery contrived Christmas tree. I think these days, Debords words are more relevant than ever.

"To rupture the spell of the ideology of the commodified consumer society so that our repressed desires of a more authentic nature can come forward.

To demonstrate the contrast between what life presently is and what it could be"

Just something to think about, a gas lamp in a sea of fluorescent lights.

2010-04-01T22:53:00.000-07:00

"The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life. But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the postmodernists with some interest, even admiration. But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking. Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are."

That's the big lesson I figured out last year. And it's the reason I'd like to one day in the future write a novel of fiction.

Lecture Six, Screening

2010-04-01T11:24:00.001-07:00

Oh hey there, Mark Amerika. It was truly nice to meet you.

I had to spend some time with "Filmtext" to come to appreciate it. At first I dismissed it and felt a whole lot like I was taking some sort of academic baby steps to becoming a "gamer." But by the end of it I really enjoyed the experience.

I appreciated the progress that digital art and literature had made since Joyce's Twelve Blue. Joyce was (at least as I understand it to be) somewhat of a pioneer for this sort of creation and thus had freedom to lay out the groundwork for a genre as well as limited resources to create it. His work was limited in terms of the literature presented as well as the layout.

Mark Amerika on the other hand has the benefit of entering into this sort of art work knowing what is possible and utilizing it. I really dug the layout of the piece; it had the ability to create something that was entirely atmospheric and engaging. I thought the "space" like setting was a perfect fit. We are accustomed to "space," sci-fi and virtuality. If he has posited us in a jungle, well we'd all be screwed and it would feel much like a joke.

The atmosphere also bodes well with the themes he throws at us. We are aliens in his world, forced to acknowledge that we are faced with something which is controlling us, as much as we are explorers. "Cut to open desert landscape," the opening tells us. We are made to be aware that we're entering into this created land and that it is or should be unfamiliar territory.

Before the lecture when I was poking about the thing on my lonesome, I was struck by the script that addresses viruses and bacteria. It's a topic I found I'm not often approached with-it seems like the sort of thing which would be found in some sort of abstract academic realm and not so much everyday media- but the relationship between bacteria and digitality. It's interesting that sickness or virus' and the digital world are barely talked about, although there has to be a discussion somewhere about it.

"I am a corrupt body corrupting others."

Lo and behold our man Foucalt steps in to tell us all about "biopower." "The practise of modern states and their regulation on their subjects through 'an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugation of bodies and the control of populations.'"

Amerika means to say that computer is a corrupt soul, stripping us of our imaginations while guiding us through this constructed land. He is taunting us with the hyperlinked possibilities yet sarcastically snarling at us that we our "perception has been terrorized."

I dig it, Amerika. If I had more time, I would explore the other themes which run through here. I'm curious when he tells us "there are more ways of seeing" if he is alluding to John Bergers Marxist Humanist text "Ways of Seeing." I've been wondering what Berger would say about our friend the internet.

Anyway, I'm going to go ride my bike outside now. See you later, Mark!

Lecture Five (Un) Weaving

2010-03-04T08:18:00.000-08:00

These notes appear on one slide of this weeks lectures. Here with them them I present my qualms with Twelve Blue" by Michael Joyce.

"The artists of the avant-garde believe that their practices are revolutionary. They have the potential to generate real world freedoms for the viewer/reader (active and produces meanings)"

And,

"They also believe their practises have the prospect of revitalizing art itself, and changing it from something that is ornamental and decorative and not essential in our lives to something woven tightly into the fabric of our everyday lives."

I don't think that "Twelve Blue" has any sway in generating real world freedoms for the reader, nor do I believe it would ever come to mean something that is essential in our lives. I am trying to wrap my head around why it has come to be something so prolific- why people write about it or discuss it. I can understand that maybe it is a little out of my grasp because I am 21 years old and have really been worked over by technology, hyperlinks are nothing new to me now. But even keeping that in mind, the story still seems vacant.

What I question is whether hyperlinks express anything in the story effectively or if they are just distracting and thrown in because Joyce realized it was possible to do so. Maybe it reflects how we construct narratives for ourselves, much of the story seems like a reflective inner dialogue of the narrator to me, but I don't think it does much aside from sensationalize literature on the internet.

In fact, I think if Anne Everret were to look at this (and y'know, Anne and I aren't really close so I don't assume to KNOW but I GUESS) she would say that part of the satisfaction or curiosity of this story has to do with simply the 'clicking' aspect of it. We would get off on clicking on the hyperlinks, and would enjoy the story for that reason. It gives off a false sense of agency over where the story is going. Novelty is found in the click, and merit is void from the telling? Am I just being too hard on digitality again?

I think it's less effective than avante-garde forms that came before it. "Twelve Blue" also has a ton to contend with, though. There is an overload of different art forms trying to be avante-garde these days on and off of the internet. There's conceptual art, anti-conceptual art, digital art, traditional art, new literature, and so on. I think hypertexts have potential but are only just starting.

Viva la Revolution!

Lecture Four Activating

2010-02-08T12:54:00.000-08:00

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH I ENJOYED THIS LECTURE!!

I can use cap lock to try to express this love, however.

What I really enjoyed in the lecture was the idea of exploring "art" IN the internet. Yes, I know that art and digital practises are completely melded together as one practise for some individuals (new media and whatnot). And yes, I know that many contemporary art obects nod at or discuss or question digitality. But art which uses the internet as the very medium? Well, that I hadn't really considered that before.

I didn't love the poetry that was presented, I didn't think any of it was particularily clever nor did the actual literature presented make me think very much or blow me over. I was aware however that I found myself distracted by the medium. Because I'm not 'used' to exploring artworks which use the medium of the internet, are imbedded in it, cannot exist without it, I was transfixed with it.

I showed my grandpa what "google" is last night and tried to teach him how to use it. He was supremely confused and also excited about what he could find. (We found the boat that he fought on as part of the British Navy during the Second World War). I think I am very excited to explore the art OF the internet ON the internet now that this concept exists in my periphery.

(I also hyperenjoyed this lecture because I devote much of my nerdy life outside of Ryerson to Modern art, and just the mention of names like Tristan Tzara and Hugo Ball make me giddy.)

Lecture Three, Thinking and Being

2010-02-08T11:35:00.000-08:00

My horoscope the other day qouted the French author Andre Gide, "Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose site of the shore."

Oh, uhm, I meant sight.

There was a slide in this weeks lecture material which immediately reminded me of last weeks content. Illuminating Harold Innis' idea of "monopolies of knowledge" a point reads, "those who control knowledge (all information and data in addition to the products of literacy and science) through the dominant media of a given society also control reality, in that they are in a position to define what knowledge is legitimate. Thus, monopolies of knowledge encourage centralization of power."

But the internet is supposedly democratic! We are all allowed to write what we want, read what we want, communicate in whatever way we want, watch porn, write anonymous letters to the world, organize hippy festivals in the desert, find the movie you want to watch for free, find the right hate group you've been looking for..

But, and this is not a radical idea, there is a level of control which exists. Ex. A) google re-writing history ( a fatal mistake for many ) after Huricanne Katrina. My issue with googlemaps presenting pictures of New Orleans before the huricanne as the image of what it looked like at the after the hurricane is that it misleads anyone outside of the state. One would look at those pictures and believe the huricanne was not as bad as the media made it sound or that aid was not needed; countless issues arise.

When things like that happen on the internet, it is cause for alarm. We are all quite well adapted to it, it seems though. Even if google manipulating images is brought up at the water cooler, kudos to those who take an interest in questioning 'democratic anonymous authorities' but we still take it all with strides. What's a girl to do, though?

I brought up Andre Gide and last week's lecture for a reason. When Everett discusses the "technological magic" or the "click theory" and we question Innis' idea of the "monopoly of knowledge" then I wonder how far we actually are in a digital world. I think maybe I should revisit Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto, because I am finally starting to question the effectiveness of the digital world to almost 'infiltrate' (what a funny word) our world and practises and everyday doings! Digitality et al forms the shores we wander on daily. I'd like to find a new ocean.

I claim the 'computerization of everything,' I do. Everett claims digitextuality is taking over the way we percieve the world, and Innis informs us that there is such a thing as a monopoly of knowledge created by those who control the dominent media.

It's a little eerie and I fear I sound like a conspiracy-theoriest, but whose world do we live in?

It seems like although I never play video games and stopped reading sci-fi novels after I turned 16 ( because I did read them before that, I won't lie) I'm still living in a virtual world.

I just wonder if our imaginations are being co-opted without us even realizing it. The escape we all used, especially as kids, will soon be dreaming of digital paradises, and then we'll be so worked over that the organic alternative to the digital world (being a day dream believer) will be lost to a Jurrasic Park, sans dinosaurs or leafy trees but with a plentitude of wires, ear buds, and a jungle of zeros and ones.

Lecture Two, Theoretical Approaches to New Media

2010-02-07T18:39:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the surreal world of a blog about digitextuality. When I type "digitextuality" in this word processor it appears underlined in red. Probably because this is a spell checker, not a theory checker, and digitextuality is a theory. I conclude it's a new theory which Einstein might have had trouble with.

The trip begins when Anna Everett qoutes Julia Kristeva on her term "intertextuality;"

"The term textuality denotes this transposition of one (or several) sign system(s) into another... (And) demands a new articulation... If one grants that every signifying practise is a field of transpositions of various signifying systems (an intertextuality), on ethen understands that its 'place' of enunciation and its denoted 'object' are never single, complete and identical to themselves, but always plural, shattered, capable of being tabulated... Every text buildes itself as a mosaic of qoutations, every text is absorption and transformation of another text."

And only to be obvious, I just quoted Anna Everett quoting Julia Kirsteva and I did it on this blog.

I'm going to try to rip off Jorge Luis' Borges here and draw attention to the digitextuality which Everett discuses, and question the never-ending nature of our immersion in a digital world a la Borge's short story "The Library of Babel."

What Everett's article leads me to believe is that we are so completely submerged in technologies which present media that draw off of previous media. What we are presented with nowadays plays off the tradition of intertextuality. The message as well as the very media we consume are shaped by that which we have culturally agreed upon as deserving of meaning, the literature and films we reference, the language and symbols we use.

At the same time, we as selves and individuals and bodies and souls are embedded into the technologies and the media. "Cinema becomes a slave to the computer," yes, and do we also? I think what (Everett quoting) Lev Manovich means is that the idea of art cinema, of the message and the story, the genre, the serious understanding of cinema as a guiding force, must bend to the forces of the flash of the computers ability to create a reality which is 'more real than ours.' Instead of looking for "recognizable separations between representational strategies of realism or verisimilitude..." we look for technological magic.

This idea does not finish once the conversation has moved away from cinema, though. All of the extensions of ourselves (I think I have Mcluhan to thank for that idea) are being pushed far beyond the realm of necessity (eg a practical technology like a telephone) and entertainment (we prefer digital music to a piano or a guitar) to surpass drives to reflect reality. Now it seems the colours of the natural world are dull and the clearer image is found on the screen. Check your facebook from your phone, travel through an underground tube to your next destination, turn on the television and see what's happening at the community centre, talk to your friend Betsy who lives two doors down on the internet. The 'computerization' of everything is occurring.

And then there is the 'click theory.' "I propose the fetishizing of the term click, and its attendant iconography... operate through new media's lure of a sensory plentitude presumably available simply, instantaneously, and pleasurably with any one of several clicking apparatuses." Here's the thing, we're submerged in the media and messages of technology, we're surrounded by it in every way and are allowing it to replace many of the way we experience life and all that it entails, and now we're getting off on it?

And then Everett has the audacity to explain, "the web’s content may be inexhaustible, but our very human or bodily attention spans and leisure time are not.” We click, and click, and click and we still can't get no satisfaction. So then what does one do? At this point, I imagine one route many take is to turn to another technology not realizing it's just another kind of "click."

I don't mean to paint such a pessimistic view. I do intend to draw attention to that which we should be weary of. Like Borges story the idea is that the immersion into technology and information and entertainment we relieve from it is infinite and unknown. We are so very immersed in technology we don't even know sometimes that we might try to get out. (Vive the arts and crafts revolution)!

So here, on this blog post, where I qoute Anne Everett quoting other people, who play on the traditions of those who come before them, I paint a "Danger" sign at the fork in the road.

Where do we go now? Click circle bored flash click bored circle pull click flash bored circle click pull flash check bored circle

Oh, A Blog!

2010-02-07T11:23:00.000-08:00

Hello!

Here I go. I have tried to write a blog before thinking that maybe it could be my way to communicate or perhaps would be a segway into some kind of online community? Since then however I've realized I'm not that "kind of gal." Some people can really utilize a blog. I have friends who exercise their creative writing skills, network with like-minded individuals, or even do-good with theirs (for example, my friend Kait runs a rad blog where I can learn about the environment).

But I now know I prefer print media and (almost) everything about it.

I enjoy lounging in a chair with a good book, something which is hard to accomplish with a bulky computer. I enjoy turning the pages, and seeing all that you've read or write actually amount to some visible portion growing as your bookmark moves further into the novel. I dig the mobility of novels and the ability to share a magazine and give a friend a physical object to live with versus sending them a url through an impersonal message.

I am a bit of a technophobe (relative of course to those around me. I wouldn't try to give the impression that I don't email or go on facebook more than is necessary).

So then why do I write the blog versus keep a journal or make a project?

Well, one can't argue that it is a fast way to get the message out there. That is not to say I plan to put no effort into this, au contraire mon frere, student life is bogged down with things pulling you every which way and to be afforded the opportunity to do a good job while doing it quickly is rather appealing.

So here we go. My thoughtful ramblings of Narrative in A Digital Age.

Already the score is technology 1, Macey's Stubborn Nature 0,